Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Beyond a reasonable doubt: Woolmington v DPP (1935)

scales doubtThis case set the law on how far the prosecution must prove its case to get a conviction.

Reginald Woolmington, a farm labourer, from Castleton near Sherbourne, had been convicted at Bristol Assizes of killing his wife, Violet, by shooting her through the heart.

He claimed her death was an accident and his conviction was eventually quashed because the trial judge had wrongly told the jury that malice could be presumed. In fact, malice can never be presumed, it must always be proved.

Comments

MR WOOLMINGTON HAD MALICE AFORETHOUGHT BECAUSE HE WENT WITH THE GUN TO DEMONSTRATE HIS LOVE BUT THIS IS NOT A REASONABLE AVENUE TO EXPRESS LOVE .THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER AS THIS IS ONLY AN EXCUSE TO EXONERATE HIMSELF FROM BLAME.THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON HIM, TO PROOVE THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO CAUSE MURDER AND THAT THE GUN WAS FOR PROOVING HIS LOVE.

Ann Wahome 2-8-11

If the D only wanted to scare his wife into returning to him, why would he need bullets? Furthermore a letter was found in his possession where he states that he has two bullets one for her and one for him, he later claimed that he wrote the letter AFTER the shooting, but how likely is that? I think that this man murdered his wife and got away with it!

Gerard M Jagroo 7-9-12